Re: 60 day waiting period

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 02:00 AM 01/12/97 -0600, Jerry Harder wrote:

>Let's try a different approach: a specialized form of a cost benefit
analysis.
>
>Define the following model:

[see previous posting for details]

[using illustrative numbers only, the following was reached]

>If the costs of the 60 day waiting period are greater 
>than $10,000 per domain name, then the policy should 
>be rejected. Otherwise, adopt the policy and the 
>difference between the actual cost and the breakeven 
>cost is the average social benefit per domain name.

I don't know whether the illustrative numbers are realistic, nor whether
the $10K figure is realistic, but what I do know is that this sort of calm
thinking is desperately needed in the debate about the 60 days.  I hope
that the critics of the 60 days will read Mr. Harder's posting quite
carefully and try to state clearly where they disagree with it or find
fault with it.

>The model can certainly be refined by adding additional costs and
benefits. One benefit identified for the policy in previous messages is URL
stability. What would be an appropriate monetary figure for that social
benefit?

Yes, URL stability is quite important.  I have suggested that it is more
important than the interests of any one impatient domain name applicant.

Keep in mind that this model arrives at a benefit to be balanced with a
cost.  And keep in mind that the cost of the waiting period has an upper
bound defined by the availability of substitutes.  For example, a company
that deals in consumer brands and that already has a domain name has an
easy substitute in newbrand.company.com, a third-level domain, or
newbrand.company.com.au, for example, a fourth-level domain.